Somerville Planning Board for Wednesday, October 22nd will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the Open Public Meeting Act has been provided. A copy of the notice specifying the date, time, and location was one posted on the bulletin board outside of Burough Hall. Two, mailed facts or emailed to the Courier News,
and three given to the clerk administrator. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call. >> Andrea Dear >> here.
>> Chris Addex >> here. >> Art Akens is excused. Larry Cleveland >> here. >> Jason Kraka >> here. >> John Manilio is also excused. Barry Van Horn >> here. >> Mayor Gallagher here. >> Council member Vroom here. >> Chair Person Warner >> here. Please stand for the pledge.
I allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay, first order of business. We have a new board member and he will be
receiving his oath of office. I will support the Constitution of the United States. >> I support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. >> Constitution of the state of New Jersey >> that I will faithfully andly >> I will faithfully
>> perform all the duties >> perform all the duties >> of a planning board member >> planning board member >> to the best of my ability. Welcome. Congratulations. >> Okay. Uh, I need a motion for approval for minutes from October 8th. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Jason Kroska, >> yes. >> Chairperson Warner, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> All right. Uh right on to uh West Main Street area need of redevelopment study.
Um a copy of the study and a copy of the required public notice can be found on the bureau's website and I'm going to turn it over to Mike Cole. >> Thank you. Um we we discussed this with the planning board on the curter draft
in September and this is the official meeting. Everybody was noticed and the bottom line is the area was studied. It's about 15 lots. The subjects properties are west or south dowy include the properties on New Street and to the triangle that goes to Somerset
and Veterans. So that triangle-shaped parcels were investigated and the the the end result of that is the parcels to the west of New Street are mostly two families are in older hold housing stock. There's like a group home and
some properties built in the last 20 years, but they're in good shape. So we the criteria used to put them in the redevelopment area is the smart growth principles which I'm not 100% comfortable with but you have to give
them enough space for flexibility if you're going to have redevelopment. So to address that concern if you look on page 10 of the redevelopment uh the area needs study report it summarize additionally recommended exception of
blocks 124 lot 14. Now, that is the irregularly shaped parking lot at the intersection of new and vets with the exception of that. And the reason why that's underutilized and it's just the shape of it and it's uh owned with the same people that own
the Grants building, which is the 2011 uh West Main Street. Uh with the exception of that parties, uh the properties located in West New Street only be redevelopment if the property owner wants to redevelop the property. these properties are and they're identified. That is basically saying the
intent is there's nothing wrong with those properties. However, if the if the property owners want to redevelop it, it gives them the option. It further articulates that the properties are not run down. There's no blight. It's just
the location and they provide flexibility. So you have the properties with the exception of the irregular shaped parking lot that are on there just at the option of the of the developer to give the burrow and the properties the flexibility. There is a
parking lot next to the volunteers of America that's just underutilized. So you'll see a criteria listed but it's not it doesn't have 18,000 potholes. It's not it's just not being used. So there's a criteria there. that says that
it's underutilized or should be looked at because it's not the highest and best use. It's not it's not it's not doing anything for anybody. So, with the exception of two parking lots, that note covers the properties to west of New Street. And then you have the properties which is the normally known as the
Grants building, which is we're aware of is underutilized poor layout. It's a commercial building that's has been vacant for a number of years including the retail on the first floor and obviously that property qualifies
uh in my opinion under the right redevelopment criteria for the the what's enumerated in the report. So you have that you have the other properties on on west on south are not in bad shape. You have one on the corner. It
just doesn't have parking. It's an older apartment building that had an addition in the 60s. It just has four parking spaces. So again, it's not falling down. We don't have uh rot or some other challenges. They're occupied, my
understanding, fully occupied. It's just that they lack parking, the utilization. So the end result is the area is in fairly, I would say, in good shape. It's just the granite building, the 2011 that needs to be redeveloped. And all this
does is give the developer and the bureau the tools to help redevelop that property. So in a nutshell, I can go on for another 20 minutes, but I'm sure we have other things here that we want to discuss and no one wants to hear me on my soup. So I was going to leave it at
that unless there's more or I skimmed it too much. >> Yeah. Questions from the board, comments. All right. I'm going to open this up to public for comment on this uh a hearing. Any public that want to come up
specifically for this? Okay, hearing none. Closing public. Okay. So, this has to go. So, what we have to do right now is we need a motion and a second to adopt the report that Mike has here, which basically, as you said, outlines that each one of the lots
included in the redevelopment area, proposed redevelopment area, meet the criteria in order for this board to find that they uh can be included in the redevelopment area and then send that back to council. >> So, do we have to do two separate, one to adopt and then one to send or we can do them both?
>> We can do them both together. Perfect. >> I will make the motion based what Cara said. Second and I'll second that. >> Andrea Dair, >> yes. >> Chris Addex, >> yes. >> Larry Cleveland, >> yes. >> William Kale, >> yes.
>> Jason Krosca, >> yes. >> Barry Van Horn, >> yes. >> Mayor Gallagher, >> yes. >> Council member Vroom, yes. >> Chairperson Warner, >> yes. Thank you, Mike, for this. >> Okay, Ryan, how many were that? How many voting? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. We're perfect. Okay. Just want to make sure. Um, okay. So I'll
have a resolution ready for the next meeting just to memorialize this. But obviously in the meantime um you know council can be aware that this was sent back to them and you know proceed accordingly. >> Okay. >> All right. So next item. So I am just
going to note here um for under discussion items that first zoning B4 that is an error. Okay. So there is there is nothing we don't have anything before us to um discuss on that. Next one under zoning. Uh so this is our B5 route 22. Council had asked the planning board to review this uh area and zone
specifically to see uh and review what uses are currently there, what might need to be updated, added, excluded, whatever that might be. Um so we do have some recommendations and the table from Mike. So Mike, if you want to kick that
off and then we'll have some discussion. Yeah, you have a table that's the current schedule A that says the permitted and non-permitted uses and the B5 and the B5 is the highway basically strip mall district along Route 206 and
Route 22. So that's the your B5. So the the charge was to look at that to see if should the recommendation allow more flexibility than what's currently in schedule A
which you have a the members here have a copy of uh specifically regarding uh educational facilities, AI training facilities right now. They're they're prohibited in the B5 zone. So
the the the charge was to look at that with the rest of the zones, but immediately look at a charge of whether education facilities uh is a good thing to have in the B5 zone. So, I was looking at this. Wouldn't that would that fall under other schools and educational services as more of like an
envelope of allowing those types of, you know, versus like I get why colleges and universities aren't right like it's not appropriate to build that on 22, but other types, you know, allowing that outside of the box thinking, you know, some of these newer trends that are
coming with some of these locations. >> The board feels that way. We've been using the NICA, North American classification system. A real short background is the codes in your schedule A standard industrial class SIC codes.
They haven't been used since 87. So as we make changes, the bureau makes changes to the ordinance. We plug in the NICS code and the reference states that you do use the NICS code which is current and much more intensive. So,
back to the chairwoman's comments, we can certainly go through that code. >> Okay. >> If the boards and I can come up with the codes I think don't allow a university something suitable for the space and the location. >> Okay. >> And I can bring that back to the
planning board with the NIC codes. Exactly. If that's where the board would like to see. >> Yeah. And just so I guess for the public's edification and board zetification, the reason it came to us is the uh the council got uh when that there was um it kind of like a cuman
school uh but it was for AI. Uh obviously it's it's you know to teach not just kids but adults as well how to utilize AI. Um and it was denied uh because it wasn't an accepted use in the zone. and we looked at it and we're kind
of like that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So, so the the council said, you know what, let's let's have the planning board uh take a look at this. It it kind of makes sense to allow that use. It's it's a newer use and it it it should be very similar to the cottage food
industry discussion we had a couple years ago. We're not talking a commercial kitchen here. Same idea uh to to allow something that's appropriate for the space as opposed to a university. So, if the board's inclined and I could certainly drill down on that with the
NIC codes to give you the exact codes uh to see that's that's acceptable, that's not acceptable, we can go through the actual codes to find something that's that the board feels appropriate if sounds like a plan. Was there anything else that the board saw when they looked at it that they said, "Hey, you know,
this isn't not an acceptable use or not an approved use yet uh as of now that we also wanted looked at." >> In my experience, there's only been two variances given the B5. One is for daycare and one was for C2 education.
back to what the mayor just said. We had an education about 10 years ago get a use variance that's next to the uh the the child care facility. >> Oh yeah. >> Okay. So those two other than that I haven't seen any use uh variance
applications for the B5. So 20 years I'm not saying that's going to be the same going forward. I'm just saying nothing jumps out at me as something we oh we should talk about fast food or something. No, we don't have those issues as well. >> No, this seems to me especially um when
it came up is something that uh 20 years ago would have never nobody would have even been thinking of it as a possibility. And this is more about keeping up with the times, keeping up with uh trends and newer things, especially on the technology and AI side. That's >> right. >> You know,
>> 20 years ago, training robots wasn't a thing. >> Exactly. Well, actually talking to a robot wasn't a thing either. >> All right. All right. So, Mike, you'll look into that and we'll get the the NIC uh IC uh codes. >> I will throw up descriptions of things I
think the board's interested in and then the board can pick and choose or if you say, "I looked at it now, you missed one or something, I will draw down so that you can see exactly what should be the recommendation be permitted in the zone." Okay. I I would also check with the zoning board and see if there were
any applications on on the highway that they may have fielded over the last couple few years to see if there's something in there that that might be applicable as well. >> Yes, I can run it by the zoning board, but since I sit over there, you got it there. I think I got I think I got that.
But yes. >> All right. So, we'll carry that for next meeting then. keep my notes all these papers. All right, so moving on to the next. Um, this is just a correction. This is an error on the agenda. This, uh, East End is not an
area in need of uh, redevelopment study. It is actually a uh, we were charged by council to do a re-exam and amendment if required. Uh, so Mike, you have uh, begun that process. If you wanted to give us some comments on what you're seeing and what um, >> open for discussion. Real quick, I've
been drilling down with Colin uh going over what how what's we haven't looked at that plan in about 10 years. The last thing we did is to amend the plan to allow transfer of development rights trying to get the
frustration with that plan is we haven't had we the burrow hasn't had a lot of activity in the east end of town which is a rub for everyone because we would like to see that develop. It's like the missing gateway coming in the community. So, we haven't looked at it for 10
years. And I uh did a review of that based on the concept plans, the Eastgate plans to see what if anything needs to be modified to allow that application to move forward. So, I have been working
with Colin and I there's I wrote a a review letter about two weeks ago on that. So I will certainly polish that up so that the any the proposals the proposed changes will come here for the planning board to review.
>> Okay. >> Uh but it's basically trying to uh allow the east gate the concept plan down there to happen in a timely fashion.
>> Any questions from anybody here? >> All right. So, our next item on uh storm water ordinance. Before we go any further, I just wanted to say so, normally we're going to have public comment on this. We're going to hold public comment until after we're done talking about stormwater ordinances,
tree ordinances, and the environmental commission has a chance to do the presentation and then I will open it up for all three for public comment just so that we're not constantly interrupted. Okay? I just want to make sure every I am going to allow for public comment on those. Um so Mike for the uh and the board's edification and the public uh
the stormwater ordinance and tree ordinance there are some new requirements that have been put down from DP. We asked Mike our planner to go through what our current ordinances are and then to actually give us uh the facts of what is actually required to be in addition to what our current
ordinances are. We really uh wanted to have that um fact basis as a starting point for us to go from there. But we wanted to see what is actually where we're at, what is required, and then uh then again start having those discussions from there. It's taken us a
bit to get there to >> uh you know, I know you've been doing this pretty adamantly, and I appreciate that. Um and then afterwards, we will have the environmental commission give a presentation on both for us. So Mike, if you wanted to start off with storm water
>> just a 30,000 foot view is 20 years ago MS4 rules were enact enacted by the D which up before 20 years ago the state rules you adjusted water quantity not quality and recharge groundwater recharge so 20 years ago state came out
that you have to address water quality and recharge in certain areas so that was the basis and they're commonly referred to the MS4 rules Um this the D has been tweaking these rules over the years and have required okay
the the the D regs require municipalities to adopt uh stormwater regulations there's called model ordinances and 20 years ago this was the model ordinance you had to adopt it blah blah blah so that was done and originally you had two tiers tier ta and
tier tb municipalities and the difference was some were exempt because they were rural the d got rid of that in 2023 and came out everybody's a tier and came out with other restrictions. Essentially what it said is uh you have
to address projected storm water uh storms for the for 2100 about 75 years in the future. So you're when you're doing your stormwater calculations you have to address uh the projected. So the D also allows for municipalities to
be more stringent. So you have the model ordinance which gives you the minimum and allows the municipalities to uh to be more strict more stringent than what the model minimum does. And I'm sure that's what the environmental commission is uh looking their proposals
to look at. So you had the de this the bureau adapted the stormwater ordinance the model ordinance and then in 2023 it was revised which D allowed the definition of a major development. It's the D says one
acre of disturbance and a quarter acre of now it's motor surface and regulated impervious but it's basically it used to be impervious service. If you're doing more in a quarter acre impervious service or over an acre of disturbance, you are a major development. What does that mean? That's the water quality.
Water quantity, uh, you have to put a maintenance plan recording with the state of the the county clerk's office. There's this there's there's there's there's requirements. So, in 2023, the the bureau that was the last revision of the stormwater ordinance. It it reides
the definition of a major development which the DP allowed to go from an acre of disturbance to a half acre and the impervious coverage from 10,000 square feet to 5,000. So what you have in front of you is a a red line that shows the
2023 and what's required in the model ordinance in the changes and the changes are very it's just basically over projected uh storm water runoff storm water infil precipitation. So you had to put the projected which is anticipated
storms that is how many inches per hour for a 10-year storm and so forth. uh you have to account for that in your storm winter designs and again it raises the question what is the definition of a major development the burough is going to use so if you went back to the model
ordinance you're going back to one acre of disturbance and a quarter acre cumulative now the D further defined regulated imperous service versus a motor surface which basically distinctions made whether you have the water quality treatment if you have
runoff from a roof for example, you don't have to treat that as runoff from a parking lot. So that's what's basically there. So if you look at the the red line and the strike through, you'll see that it's 95%
current with the exception of projected and again addressing what we doing, what is the burough doing with the definition of a major development. So you have that uh then the environmental commission because the state allows for it and the model ordinance came up with more stringent requirements and you have a
summary table. So the environmental department's going to speak on this but they're basically uh regulating storm water below uh 5,000 square feet. They have a new category called minor development and a bunch of criteria that anyone who does more than 400 square
feet of the impervious coverage has to address and that's in borings and conservation and there's as you go through the summary there's an annual uh fee for systems which are now regulated
u fees for every one of those and you have to the conservation have to be like a major development. It have to be recorded what the the clerk's offer. So, some means of doing to show that to show that conservation and then there's an annual
report for maintenance that needs to be spent at the bureau. It's I'm I don't want to steal too much thunder, but I'm just giving you the the the 30,000. So, the environmental will certainly go into detail on this. Uh so that is where there they're coming from and further
defining right now the bureau is exempt from storm water from groundwater recharge exempt because it's an urban area and the D recognize that given the density that the bureau municipalities like the bureau PA1 is a fancy way of
saying urban areas areas or regional centers don't have to do storm water uh recharge uh the proposals and they'll get into detail. They're proposing that that groundwater recharge be applicable in the burrow.
>> So, >> so for us right here, let's just can we stay focused on what the requirements are from D so that we can understand that from the planning board because that's really what yeah, >> we're trying to understand where we're at and what are the new requirements. >> Requirements are there's no groundwater recharge requirements. There's no
requirement for the term minor development. It's just major development and right now if you use the state's major development definition and I'm sure the environmental commission will chime in uh probably 90% 80% of the land
use applications don't meet the definitions and wouldn't have to go through what water quality issues. So what the environmental commission is proposing is essentially capturing a great a significant number of applications going down to homeowners to
address storm water management on site on the road to address it. >> So that's that's another requirement or what you're >> I'm sorry. Let's just stay focused. Yep. Sorry Mike. >> Sorry please. >> Because I don't want any of us to be confused on what the requirements are. The requirements are that uh you have to
define a major development and you don't have to do storm water groundwater recharge in the burrow. >> Okay. And so our current major development is 5,000 square feet and or half acre. >> It's 5,000 ft and a half acre and the
burrow could go to an acre which is the model ordinance and a quarter acre. It could double those numbers. Those numbers were halfed in 2023. Before 2023, it was one acre and 10,000 square feet. So in 2023, the numbers were halfed. And that still the bureau has
the option of going back up to one acre and 10,000, leaving what it is >> or something else, more stringent. >> So our current one is more stringent than the state. >> The current one is more stringent than the state in terms of defining a major development. >> Okay? >> And that's what you see striketh
through. You'll see that in the striketh through saying a half acre of disturbance and 5,000. You'll see the striketh through where it's one acre of disturbance and 10,000 square feet. >> And Mike, with with that half acre in
there for major development, you say the majority of development is not considered major. Did I get that right? >> Yeah. If you look in Somerville, if you have most applications, they're not disturbing an acre of disturbance and
most applications aren't disturbing 10,000 square feet. So the charge typically the planning board and the border adjustment, we get the storm water management to the street so it's not adversely impacting residents.
But I think the question was so on the 5,000 and half acre, how is that affecting applications? >> It's having it obviously mathematically in terms of uh land use, I don't see a huge impact to date, but yes, it will
capture more. >> Absolutely. >> We're we're currently at a half acre, 5,000. >> Yes. Correct. >> And that and that's our current that's the current comments you're making. >> Correct. >> Right. Okay, >> Mike, just so I understand and can follow along, the one that has the draft on it, that's your red line and the one
with the high with the yellow highlights that incorporates the environmental. >> You have there is a a hard copy I when it there's a green copy it says for draft for discussion from the environmental I environmental also provided Ryan with a diffal draft.
>> Got it. >> But the one I looked at you have it in your hand. one that's in my hand >> just so everybody could see what >> I viewed is the one with the green discussion. It was from environmental discussion. This was the red line that uh was proposed or
>> and this was yours. >> This was mine. Okay. >> That I did on behalf of the planning board which is nothing but read with the strike through on the existing ordinance. And I'm sorry for confusing the issue. No, I know I it's hard because we've >> we have so much that we're going to
discuss, but that's why I'm just trying right now just to see what are the additional requirements that we are required to add. >> The additional requirements would be simply add projected data projected precipitation and whatever the bureau wants to do with meter. You can leave the major the
definition alone, go back to what the model minimum says or something else. So you'll see that it's literally 95% accurate. some of the hyperlinks for you'll see comments on the hyperlinks but the tables everything the tables are nothing more than to address the
projected you have to do storm imagine for a 100redyear storm where the precept for 100year storm for the projected is more than existing and that's all that table does >> okay >> and so you'll see this big table it's just >> and environmental commission on their
study just put it for some county I left the whole table for the whole New Jersey and it's more appropriate to show just Somerset County that table, but I'm saying that it looks bigger than it is. It's generally just projected data and whatever the definition of major
development is. That's it. That's why I say the existing stormwater ordinance is 95% inconsistent with your question of what the model ordinances. And it looks like some of the other um adjustments I would say are like you said updating uh
links, addresses, uh you know, new names of committees or or departments or you know, so >> it's not other than those two items. >> It's really dimminimous. It's really grammar and polishing and further defining it, but it's projected. You'll
see projected put in and you'll see the tables it if you just go through your comparison is that kind of go through. >> Yeah. >> What the new requirements are just get a copy out here. >> I'm sorry. This one
>> if you look you have >> the markup the first five pages. The only change is on the definition of major development. and you start rolling through it and there's two more definitions for public roadway.
Okay, it's just clarification of what D wants. The clarification is linear developments are exempt and it's just clarifying that and then you go through it and there's no changes for a hyperlink on um
probably 15 pages into this and you just it's no change no change no change and then you come to the end there's literally no change except for back on the projected near the calculation of runoff on 149 A4 there's
a couple of changes there But it's projected. And then I I should mention this. They the state says you can't use the modified rational methods. It was just taken out. >> It's just taking out a stormwater calculation method. The state says you can't use um
and then the projected I'm just looking at this. It's all projected. And then uh addresses hyperlinks. It's essentially dimminimous with the exception of projected data and clarifying major development and
clarifying linear development. It just basically really finds the ordinance was in place prior. The D came out and clarified a few things and wants to project the data which is to make sure we're accounting for runoff from a
anticipated increase in severity. I think Barry's 2100 that's 75 years out. I think the projected data is Yeah. So just to give you an idea, they're saying we're using old data that the climate's changing. We have to
anticipate more preip. So that's why it's projected data that's incorporated into it. >> So I know in um leading up to this, one of the questions we all kind of had was with with these new requirements, will there what kind of impact or is there an impact to our residents?
>> Yeah. And I think the summary table that summarizes it, I think the the impact is going to be that and this is to if you're talking about the model ordinance >> requirements in the model,
>> if you look at the model ordinance up to now, I would state that the model ordinance really didn't capture residential development. If you were doing a driveway addition and a detached garage, even a single family, you were
typically exempt. And I would put in the report in the planning board, the board of adjustment would address it and we would get the storm water straight. But there was no uh maintenance plans that had to be filed with the county clerks and you didn't have to go through it. So
up to date, I haven't seen one uh homeowner, one or two family that met the definition of a major development. and the new requirements that we need to add would not impact that in your opinion. That's that's really because that was one of our biggest concerns is
>> you know what would what how does this implicate and how does this um affect our residents >> if should the borrow just adopt the minimum model ordinance? I don't see an impact on the residents at all. Basically, because I've been addressing this for 20 years and I haven't seen one
residential uh application have to be be defined as a major development and have to meet this to date. That is where my opinion if the changes if you the model ordinance was used it would be very little impact on
the residents because they don't meet the definition. So even being more strict in what that major development, you still don't see any because really there we could loosen it if we wanted to, but there's nothing really that says we need to because it's still not going to we're not impacting
>> um what we would consider major development, right? >> Because they I get that they're looking towards major development, truly major development. If the bureau decided to keep the definition alone from 2023, the half that we talked about in the model, I don't see an impact uh on a
residential one and two family. We had an application from the border adjustment for a four family on South Bridge Street that does get impacted because I have a surface parking lot that I think will meet the 5,000 square feet of impervious. So yes, there's one
application that that I think meets now meets a definition and that's called the Fateos. is not in front of this board's border adjustment application, but I have yet to see an application in the one and two family that has to deal with it's defined as a major development and that's on the current ordinance or in my
opinion the future tweaks to the current model ordinance using the model ordinance. >> Okay, >> that answers your question. >> Yes, it does. >> I haven't looked at one in 20 years here. uh not one uh property owner that's had to deal with a major
development criteria. >> Not one. >> Uh any questions from the board for Mike. >> All right. So, we're going to move to trees. Lost my train of thought there. Sorry. Um All right, Mike, you're back
on. >> All right. I'm gonna try to be clear about this. I got a little our current ordinance. >> All right. >> With requirements we have to add in >> the planning board planning board asked me to look at the existing tree ordinance and put what the model de okay
the DP came out as part of the reg the proposed changes the changes in 2023 regulating trees that trees are now regulated and there's some model ordinance that has to be addressed. So I did what I did is I looked at the
existing ordinance and I superimposed the model which is the red in there on the trees. I left I just tweaked saying the selling of wood all that stuff in the front. I just made it work. I don't I don't know the if that's appropriate the bureau wants to but still I just
worked with what the current ordinance was. So the red is the the model language the D wants to say and I threw blue in just to say what D is giving the discretion to the municipalities are the
application fees the fees for not providing trees the penalties these are all optional for the municipality so I you see blue just to say these are discussion points that the >> so I just want to clarify I'm sorry so that means we we have to have a process
or a procedure in place, but we do not have to assign a fee with that. Is that what you're saying? >> The fees are as determined by the municipality. I just want So, if the municipality chooses $1, then it's $1. Municipality chooses $1,000. It's $1,000. The fees and the model ordinance
simply says as determined by the municipality. Okay? And I'm talking about the application fees and the fees for not planting. if you can't all anything involving a fee is at the discretion of municipality and that's the only thing why is blue there I
clarified a little bit uh on how do you determine a tree expert you'll see some flexibility OEM comes out to a fire they have to take a tree down I there's some accounting for that in the blue in there the blue type that the blue type is my
commentary with the exception of the fee the red type is exactly exactly what the language is from the D model ordinance. So I was just calling the blue is the call to attention that I'd like to see some flexibility given to the burrow OEM fire first responders who have to deal
what they have to deal with with a tree if it's in front of a building building and the tree has to halfway come down to fight a fire or something the process is accounted for. So you'll see that blue in there and the rest of it is red is the model D
ordinance and the uh environmental has a presentation discussing how they see the fees in the process. >> Um so and also to point out so we're very familiar with the $650 Larry
reminds us at every application >> it used to be a lot less. >> I know >> it's supposed to be reflective of what cost. >> But my point of what I was getting at is that's not changing. Correct. >> No, but I I do question though how
flexible the town can be on other issues. We're just charging $10 to replace a tree. That means 750 or 640 goes on us. >> Wow. >> I can't that there's there I thought I saw something in they said you can't
it's in blue charge the cost. You have the fees are up to the municipality. What I'm what I did in blue is the 650 is on the books. >> Yes. >> As the planning board's aware, we've been >> so I'm gonna I'm gonna >> one of the things that's >> I'm sorry.
>> One of the things that you know and the reason I'm bringing this up is are we able to under the new requirements to have separate requirements for major developers versus our residents? Are we allowed to do that if we chose to do
that? I think you can do that in terms of the fees and yes I think you >> so I mean the process might be the same but I'm saying do we have to you know if we're charging major developers or saying are we allowed to because I've looked at other tree ordinances throughout the state and I see that you
know they'll make my personal opinion is it should be the reverse but they're making the their burrow and their planning boards and everything exempt and everything is on the resident to to carry those costs. Are we able to, if we decided to as a planning board, flip
that and say, "No, we want it on major development. We want it on major developers, but we want our residents to yes, they still have to have a reporting process or whatever, but there'll be no fee for that." >> I think you could certainly do that. It's really a legal question for Cara.
But if you say the the language is the language, but the process I think the municipality has 100% control over. If the process for one and two family is no application fee, no this, no that, I think you can completely do that to make
the process different, but the language >> Well, this wouldn't supersede the redevelopment plans and everything because most of the developments we're seeing it's they're required to put in >> we already have Yeah. So, we are that's where that 650 comes in because it's already there. So, I wouldn't want to
you listen, I know there's been some discussion of maybe needing to increase it now. you know, now would be the time, not tonight because we're trying to just get the facts, but maybe it is that we want to increase that on on major development and um any application that is a major development. But I just wanted to kind of understand, you know,
our options as it relates to the requirements from D. >> Yeah, you have the model ordinance. I think Ryan gave out the model D ordinances and you'll see where the brackets are, the flexibility as determined by municipality to be determined. So literally
the fees are all in my opinion 100% municipalities control. Some of the language no you have to the language is the model language but how you the process and the fees fines replacements all that stuff numbers are in my opinion
>> and that's to say that we can't say that residents are exempt. They still have to have a process of which could be a self-reporting or some kind of system like that. You still have to do that. We just don't have to apply a feed for that. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> Unless you >> This is very muddy water. It It definitely is. And it gets even worse where you start looking at what other towns have done the way other people have interpreted it because you get residents saying, "Well, this town does it this way." And in reality, they may not be doing it properly.
>> Um or maybe making it less stringent when in actuality all you're able to do is make it more stringent. Um there certainly has to be a reporting requirement. Um it could be simple. It could be you know fee without a fee if
it's for exempt trees but you know there has to be some sort of justification provided by a property owner public private irrespective because you'll see even in the frequently asked questions you know DPWs can be subject to the exact same standards as a private
property owner and a major developer or a single resident. Um, so you know that there is some flexibility. To your point, can the fees be different um for replacement trees for applications? I'll look into that that I haven't seen so
far. >> Um, but you know, you do have flexibility, but there's certain things you got to make sure you do. And a lot of people aren't liking it at this point. >> And that's why I'm asking that question because I'm sure the board is also thinking that as well. you know, we're constantly trying to um make sure that
we're meeting requirements, but we also don't want I don't want a heavy burden on our residents for something that, you know, if you have a dead tree, and I'll use the example, you have a dead tree on your property, I don't want that to be a process where that they can't take it down very easily. There should be a process. I don't necessarily disagree
with that. Um, but it shouldn't be at, you know, thousands of dollars because it is there is a cost to just take the tree down, period. >> And it doesn't need to be. And wi with regard to those issues where you've got these exempt trees, hazardous trees, dead trees, whatever the case may be,
the the most important thing I'm seeing across the board is that there be some sort of documentation. >> Okay? >> It could even be after the fact. Because again, you're dealing with a dead tree, a hazardous tree, something along those lines, as long as they come in and say, "Hey, on Saturday, I had a dead tree
that was about to fall on my house. I cut it down. Here's where it was located. I'm signing this form to say that this is what I did because at the end of the day I believe and I'll defer to Mike on this but you know the your engineer in the bureau is going to have to justify to the D how many trees were
cut down >> so that if you're audited there may be some >> why that required process is something that they can collect in that data. Okay. >> Correct. Yes. And some towns have made it very difficult. Some are requiring arborists to come in and make the
determination. Some are requiring pictures. You know, it could be as ownorous or non-ownerous as you want. But the point is justification that you can then go back and rely on if you're audited. >> Okay. >> And we that's where some of that flexibility comes on how we end up
there. Correct. Okay. Correct. >> Who makes the determination? What's the application fees? What is the process? Online portal? No. Zoning officer? >> Okay. Correct. >> Right. Any questions for Mike on that right now
before we move forward? >> So, what we're looking at here is the actual draft that we push forward if we kept it as is the final copy, right? >> Yes. The red on here are all the new requirements. Yes. >> Yeah. Chris, I made it work. I used the existing. You'll see it and I just put
in the blue the I hooked it back and the environmental commission had a list of trees that was included on that. They have a list of cle trees and I took out like The ordinance right now says Japanese tree lilac used in the main street. I think we're getting away from
it to mix the table. So that was you'll see striketh through and Japanese tree of lilac and it it says refer to the table. So again you have I just worked within the existing ordinance and added the Chris the um exact language the
model ordinance that D wants and the blue is just commentary saying you have discretion on those numbers and back to carara's point who is making these determination that's where I opened it up saying this guy code enforcement if he agrees with the property owner then
the tree can come down but again you could say arborous you could say there's There's flexibility in there. How do you, as Cara says, how do you make the determination since typically they involved code enforcement? Someone complains about a tree. So, I I thought it was appropriate to have if they sign
off on it, the tree has to come down to expedite the process. >> Okay, >> that was my thinking. And there's there's as many ways of handling this. You can you can say missile engineer, you have a designated person. I was just trying to
open it up. So there's multiple avenues so we're not caught that someone's on vacation or someone disagrees. You don't have avenues to address this in a cost effective manner. >> Okay. >> Any other comments?
>> Now there is exemptions. trees down. >> I think the record keeping is more about the exemptions. Proper only has exemptions four or five. There's a time frame how many trees you can take down. I think it's documenting that you're working within those exemptions. >> I also believe if I'm not mistaken, the
environmental commission has recommended and the burough council approved an application for a tree for money for a tree survey. >> Is that right, Glenn? >> Yeah. Yeah, we're still working on >> Yeah. Any other questions for Mike before? All right. So, just from the planning board.
So, now we have the base, we have the requirements. This gives us a lot of food to look at. Uh, and you know, because we're this is going to be a discussion that's not going to end tonight. This is just the beginning of getting the facts. We want to hear the other recommendations from the environmental commission giving us more.
Um, but please, you know, if you're confused on which one it is at the end, please make sure that you understand which one you're looking at so that we know when, you know, because that that is our charge now is to look at these with the new requirements and what
within those new requirements, what whatever flexibility we do have, which is why we're trying to get some of that clarified. You know, which direction we would make that recommendation on moving on to. >> Yeah. But to keep it light, I would re I recommend using the summary table for the storm water. I think that nails it.
You'll see on the left is what needs to be done on the existing ordinance and the right is uh what's being proposed at least in a nutshell from the I understand the environment commission just did a new one. I haven't digested. So maybe that list on the right is not
all inclusive, but I'm sure they'll get to that. But that summary table should show you what's going on. And the trees I it's three or four pages. Uh the difference in the trees is just basically the blue between the groups. They're all the environmental
commission. I'm the model ordinance is the model ordinance. We're all using the same thing. It's just a question of what you do with the as determined by the by the bureau. That's the one that's the rub. >> So just real quick, just going back to something Lee asked before. This doesn't
supersede the redevelopment plans when it says um you know a developer comes in and they they have to put in eight street trees based on the the dimensions and everything. This doesn't change any of that. Correct. >> If we use the model ordinance.
>> I don't think it does. I think the environmental speak to that but they have other provisions about who's looking at something that may impact the board's review. >> But the requirements do not. Correct. The requirements do not. My opinion, the requirements, the the board would have
complete jurisdictions. This documentation, >> we could be more stringent. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. Your redevelopment agreement or plan basically would probably say either compliance with section blah blah blah of the burough ordinances regarding trees or more if that's the case. >> Okay.
>> Yes. I think if the model ordinance was done that the bureau the planning board would retain its discretion and ability to address it on a sightby-sight cases but once in front of the board. What works doesn't work. >> And and also just one more piece of
clarification. Um this does not change anything on how we do look at major site redevelopment um plans as they come before us on you know if it is a wide open space and they're cutting down trees. our process doesn't change where
they have to go through, you know, storm water management, all that has to, excuse me, has to come before the board. There is no just doing it and asking for forgiveness. That doesn't change. Our process is very strict as it relates to that. Okay.
>> Correct. That's correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um All right. So, we are going to have the environmental commission come up and please do you're going to do you have it combined, right? So, you're going to do uh so they're going to present us on the stormwater ordinance and the tree ordinance their
recommendations. There we go. All right. Okay. Awesome. Um, good evening. Thank you all for for inviting us here tonight. My name is Tim Deal. Um, I'm the chair of the Environmental Commission. I'm a botonist and an
environmental educator and I have a degree in environmental science. Um this is Jeff Kaiser. He's the vice chair of the commission. He's got degrees in physics and a master's in engineering. And this is Chris Satiro who we've invited here tonight. Um he won't be necessarily presenting, but he's the
storm water policy and program coordinator at New Jersey Future. So we figured if there are any technical questions that came up for storm water, he may be the person to ask the subject matter expert. So, uh, with that that great setup, we are obviously here to talk about these
two key environmental ordinances. Um, members of the environmental commission have spent a lot of time uh working on these ordinances and reviewing the models sent set forth by the by the state and um trying to wrap our heads
around how we can customize these for our little stamp of New Jersey because we all know that this is a really unique municipality with unique needs. Um so we understand that there are going to be a lot of municipalities and have been a lot locally who have just adopted the
model baseline ordinances to you know get that check box of compliance with state regulations. Um the environmental commission feels very strongly that this is actually an opportunity for us to do much more and make a far greater impact for our community and really be
proactive about storm water rather than reactive. So finally um I just wanted to mention we understand that the role of the environmental commission is just to provide you guys with recommendations, provide you with our lens from uh you know for for environmental matters. We
understand this all needs to be vetted and everything that we're going to be talking about is um clearly up for discussion. Uh so I just wanted to to say we're not mandating anything. It's just uh what we what we decided on would work best for our community. um based on
the very thorough research and uh webinars and you know all of the the the different uh ways we educated ourselves on on these matters. Um so that said, you know, we do feel that these changes
are vital for our community in many different ways and we really happy to have this uh chance to speak to you guys tonight about what what those changes are that we're proposing and and why they're going to be so impactful. So, um, Jeff is going to get us kind of kicked off here.
>> Hi, good evening. Um, again, Jeff Kaiser. Um, so before we dive in, it's really important, we thought it was very important to take a quick snapshot of where we are at Somerset County. So, as we all know, we've all experienced here in Somerset County, we've experienced
bigger floods, bigger storms, more rainfall. We've had hotter temperatures. Our water quality has been uh decreased by, you know, water runoff. and as well as we've, you know, we've encountered destruction of our own town property as well as our own residential property due
to the the storms and the increased rainfall we've had. You can see the uh there's a there's a um an image on the right that shows the increase in pvious coverage there. Um so this is another uh interesting slide that shows from 1930 to today. It shows the development of
Somerville. I thought this was pretty interesting. As you can as you can see, the number of the amount of impervious coverage that's been created in Somerville is actually primarily in residential areas. The residential areas have populated the the uh the area of
Somerville. And uh this is actually the majority of our tree canopy actually exists here in Somerville. And as we know what we've studied is that trees are a vital part of our storm water management. They are a vital part of they're basically part of our storm water infrastructure.
So, uh here's some a few a few graphs um basically explaining that we have increased rainfall. Uh you know, New Jersey has increased rainfall every single year. What relates specifically to storm water is that the extreme
storms that happen, those are increasing much more. So, each storm that happens, we're having more and more rain happening in a shorter period of time. And with impervious coverage and low bar storm water regulations, that
water becomes harder to manage. And so, uh, for instance, even there on the on the right, you can see that Somerset County is actually going to be one of the top is going to spirit some of the highest increases in 100-year flood rainfall events up to 48%. So, we know
Ida was a 500-year flood. Imagine Ida 50% more essentially. So also just wanted to pick and make make a note that storm water affects our water quality.
When the Clean Water Act was adopted, we did a very good job at managing the pollutants that were uh dumped into our rivers and lakes and we cleaned up our water. But today, storm water actually is the what affects our water quality the most. And we've all gotten the phone
calls from American Water saying, "Oh, you know, your water might smell or now it has a different color." Well, our water we get from from American Water is fed from our local lakes and rivers and and and everything. And that water is then polluted primarily from our storm
water runoff. All the chemicals and garbage that sits on our impervious surfaces, those flow into our waterways. Not only that, but our soil infiltration is actually less. So our water recharge is less, our aquafers are being depleted as well as our environment, our local
environment is affected by impervious surfaces. So with that lens, what is New Jersey doing about it? You know, Mike uh laid it out pretty clearly, but the inland flood protection rule that happened in 2023 adopted new regulations for the uh flood hazard act and flood
hazard rule as well as changing storm water management. And that also triggered the four permit as well requiring the tree removal replacement ordinance that we're going to discuss as well as adopting more um storm water regulations. What we did as the environmental
commission is we studied these things. We st we attended webinars. We spoke with experts from the watershed institute um as well as Chris is here from New Jersey Future and we educated ourselves on these topics and we looked for ways in which we could um take
advantage of this opportunity to make Somerville a vibrant and healthy place to live going forward and to be able to manage and not just deal with the current storm water situation now but be able to handle it in the future. And so we studied the enhancements that the
watershed institute in New Jersey future that study these things extensively recommended and we're here to you know describe those things as well. I'd like to make note that in January D is also coming out with the real rules resilient environmental landscapes. Those are
going to be even further um restrictions on our storm water management. Some of the enhancements we're recommending are a part of those new regulations. So just want to mention that. So, we want to look toward the future. >> Yes. Awesome. So, now we understand some
of the science behind this and the um regulatory drivers. Um we're we're gonna really get into it. Um we'll try to we'll try to keep it brief. We know you guys are busy people. Um so, here in Somerville, we all we all know the
impacts of flooding. Um these images here uh you know were all taken in the last four years directly in Somerville. And what's really striking is that only one of those photos was taken after a named storm. Um so storms are getting
worse and we are we are caught in the crosshairs here um in our our little river valley. So uh I want to just take a moment to to recognize our first responders and the DPW who help our community through these storms. Um when
weather is coming, uh the OEM, police, fire and rescue and DPW all jump to action. Um alerts go out, cars get moved uphill, um heavy equipment, heavy expensive equipment gets hauled to higher ground and rescue vehicles are
staged in um optimal locations uh for potential rescue. Um and then after after the storm dies down, the community the community cleans up. We all pay for these floods um
emotionally and financially and both as residents and as a municipality as a whole. Um so you know what I've outlined here is a very brave and well-managed response strategy, but it isn't prevention.
So, these two ordinances will give us the tools that we've been missing to really manage storm water where it starts and protect the canopy that is silently protecting us. Um, so we'll get into that, but um so we've mentioned we
spend a lot of time on this and um you know Jeff is going to really get us kicked off here um regarding storm water. So uh what does the so that we we looked at the model ordinance we looked at um the enhancements that we studied through the watershed in student New Jersey
future and we studied what it didn't include and like I I spoke about the science in the beginning we wanted to address those things. So for instance the DP it handles rate but it doesn't actually effectively handle volume. It doesn't
effectively handle water quality for all imperous surfaces just for roadways. It doesn't deal with water recharge which would then um improve our aquafers and in any real practical sense it doesn't necessarily address redevelopment in a
way that puts us into the future. It only and it only really addresses large developments where Somerville is a town of small small lots and a lot of improve coverage. So as the environmental commission, we are we find it we are
responsible for providing environmental policy recommendations to our our government as well as providing ones that would help protect our citizens and protect our environment. So we would like to try to halt not just slow our
environmental changes here in Somerville. We want to address them going forward. And we think this is an opportunity that we'd like to take take on this this this tough topic, this uh difficult topic and come with a come up with a true set of regulations that
would really help Somerville thrive in the future. So what are we recommending? So uh as you guys outlined earlier, the the model ordinance increases the amount of soil disturbance and impervious coverage that we already have. So, we'd like to keep
it the same way we've we think we should keep it the way the Summervilles had it, meaning half oil, half acre of soil disturbance and keeping it at 5,000 square feet of impervious coverage. We think it's important to um to handle water quality to treat the
water of all imperous surfaces that are then that are then um put in rather than just regulated motorways. Our on-site retention using inconven infrastructure is a great tool to allow us to recharge the water and not spill it into our
streets and our in our um gutters immediately. Um and we did take the time to study not just large developments but minor development like I showed in that first slide. most of the tree canopy and
most of the impervious coverage uh ability to actually add impervious coverage most of the development could most likely happen on residential properties and so we looked at um the watershed institute and futures uh recommendations on smaller properties
and we didn't agree with their smaller size we went and we thought that 400 square f feet would be a reasonable size to address minor development and that would require two gallons of water to be retained on site which basically equates
to if you put in a small what 400 square uh foot patio it equates to some um basically some landscaping around it. It's simple green infrastructure redevelopment is also addressed in our or in our recommendations.
So right now uh water quality is not addressed uh in any well excuse me it's it is but um In our ordinance, we you'd redeveloper would have to actually ass we'd actually have to assume that the entire property
is a pvious cover impeous surface. So, it's a forest basically and then go from there and then apply the regulations based on that. So that it puts our places that are going to have the largest amount of storm water runoff into the most um uh into into
regulations that are going to really benefit benefit us in the future. and it's going to um keep us vibrant as a as a community. And again, we we we are looking towards the real rules that we we studied and it's it's important for
us to get ahead and uh include some of these things that are going to be coming down the pipe. Anyways, so in conclusion of storm water, we're going to get on to tree is that we know our climate is changing. It's intensifying. Somerville is ground zero for flooding. We've experienced it. We're near the Ritan
River. Manville's experienced it. We're a part of a community of towns that have all experienced it and we feel and we've studied this that we feel that the current D models don't go far enough and that we need to meet the the moment. We
need to meet the moment and uh approach this with a sense of urgency and address this now so that we put a little bit of upfront time more than a little but a little upfront time effort and yes allow us to put in some money investment when
you do when we do these types of regulations so we're not paying for it in the back end. A smaller investment now would limit the large amount of money we would spend later when we're cleaning up our mess. So, thank you. >> Awesome. So, tree removal and
replacement ordinance. This is a cool overhead shot that I found that gives us a little bit of a glimpse of um our tree canopy here in Somerville and a pretty good glimpse of some of that impervious coverage that we're we're talking about. Um, so you know, we're we're having this
whole conversation about storm water. How do trees fit in? Um, trees are infrastructure as as Jeff mentioned. We don't think of them that way, but they absorb storm water. They help reduce flooding. They provide shade and cooling and ultimately that helps saves taxpayer
dollars on storm water management and heat related uh impacts. So, you know, losing canopy now means higher flood risks in homes and in our streets. Um, quality of life is a simple one. Um, I think we'd all agree uh that that trees
are beautiful. More trees mean clean cleaner air, cooler streets, stronger property values, and also a more welcoming downtown, helping to uh boost the local economy. And then we've already kind of talked through the compliance bit. Um, you know, just getting our our town uh up on these
regulations helps uh avoid future penalties and and you know, allows Somerville to be eligible for grants and um infrastructure funding. Okay. So, the purpose of the tree ordinance, so this legislation essentially will
allow Somerville to maintain and track our tree canopy over time. Uh trees are our first line of defense when it comes to storm water and without a way of tracking the changes to our canopy, we cannot fight these storms properly. Um,
in terms of accountability, uh, with these increased weather events that that are projected that we talked about at the beginning of this of this presentation, we really strongly feel that every single property owner has a responsibility to help with the storm
water management issue that we have here in Somerville. We are all interconnected and these storms do not follow the human boundary lines that we've set within our municipality. The state has recognized the importance of trees in storm water management and given the impervious
cover that we have here in Somerville, uh each of us has that responsibility to help alleviate the burden that this has on our neighbors and the burrow as a whole. So, uh just wanted to talk a little bit about how the actual um process will
work. So, uh, you can kind of read through, um, if you're following along at home, you can read through the top, uh, piece, but essentially you apply, um, you double check, uh, your tree, make sure it fits within the ordinance boundaries, um, apply once, and then,
uh, the option of either replacing the tree on site or, um, adding to a fund that allows a tree to be planted somewhere else in need in the uh, community. But I wanted to focus on some of the wise uh behind this this
ordinance. So why do we need an application process? As I just mentioned um without a dedicated process, there's no accountability or a way to track the changes in the canopy. Um why do we feel that um an associated application fee is
needed? Um we figured that you know this would help to fund the staff time um you know any sort of admin or inspection related um pieces and ensure that lost canopy is replaced where it's delivered. Um and uh lastly where did 800 come
from? So, this is um probably a little bit of a hot topic it sounds like based on the discussion before, but um we understand that the cost of a street tree is uh budgeted around $650. So, we factored in inflation a little bit there
and um you know, we're thinking a little bit in terms of longevity over time. Uh so, that's that's where that that number came from in our recommendations. All right. And then uh we've talked a little bit about it, so I won't spend too long here, but there are exemptions.
Um the hazard trees are a huge part of it. Um so if the tree is dead, dying, falling apart, could fall on someone's house or um the sidewalk or whatever, um is destroying your foundation, or if it's blocking a street sign, those are
all exempt from the the ordinance. You wouldn't have to replace those or pay the replacement tree fee. Um, we also included in our recommendations that the municipality would actually not be part of this exemption because the majority
of the trees that the bureau handles and looks after are street trees. And street trees provide both the storm water um benefits, but also the shade aspect for people walking around and um yeah, the
the general urban heat island cooling effect um that they have uh near the asphalt. And then um the small residential removals. This one is um kind of inherently difficult uh weirdly worded
um but if you have one our recommendation is that if you have one acre of land then you can remove up to three trees within a 5-year period. Um so essentially that means that this would apply to people that own property that is larger than a third of an acre. So those people would be able to apply
for this exemption. And then there are a bunch of other uh exemptions that didn't feel super we don't need to spend too much time on them. Um I thought that it might be helpful to include a little diagram here. Um you guys received in
your email a more comprehensive version of this. Um but I wanted to take some of the heavy hitters here and explain um our enhancements versus the model ordinance. So that first one, the permit threshold is the um the DBH. I'll be
talking about that next. Um and then another one that has come up is the replacement and species list. We had inserted um the list of native trees from for Somerset County. Um but an alternative option in the model
ordinance would be to include a do not plant list which would include the invasive species in our area. um we would be happy to adjust that uh maybe include the requirement as the do not plant list and the recommendation um for
the native trees. Um that's a whole another topic if you're interested if we can chat later. Um and then the enforcement and governance piece. So, we took the recommendations from the model ordinance and we did add the environmental commission as an advisory
step that that was really an attempt um to help lighten the administrative load that we knew that this ordinance was going to be adding to the burrow. Um so, you know, take it or leave it, but we we'd be happy to be involved if if that feels right for the the board. Um and
then penalties and fees we we already addressed. So, um, DBH, this is a I know we're definitely over time here, so I'll be quick, but DBH, it stands for >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. I was racing there. Um,
okay. DBH. So, it stands for diameter at breast height. And essentially what you would do is you would go into your backyard and bring a string or a tape measure uh measure the circumference of your tree and then divide that by pi. So
um that gets you the diameter of your tree. Um so you can see the DBH here of the 2.5 uh inch uh tree. That's my street tree outside of my house and my my dog. Um and that's the the baseline
regulation for street trees as um outlined in our our uh suggested ordinance. And then also the one on the right is that minimum of 4 in DBH. Um which is a little bit more stringent than the uh D model. The model ordinance
suggested 6 in. Um we feel that 4 in is appropriate for our town because um so the impact of DBH is every single inch in diameter represents that tree's
capacity to uptake 10 gallons of water. So that 4 inch DBH tree has a capacity to uptake 40 gallons of water each day, which essentially equates to a bathtub full of water per day per year. So given
the impervious coverage uh that we have here in Somerville, the size of our municipality, and the size of our lots, we thought that the 4-in DBH made sense because every inch of diameter that that we can save in our tree canopy
only helps the overall storm water uptake of the canopy as a whole. Um so just wanted to to give that a little bit of time there. So, in terms of all of this that we're proposing across both ordinances, we
wanted to try to sum it up here for you guys. So, we're our vision is that these enhancements will create safer streets and homes, cleaner water, they will cool our town, and we'll have a clear set of rules that everybody will be able to
follow and a clear process essentially. Um the result of that is uh exponential compared to to to what we what we're proposing here because we're we've got long-term savings on the books because we're being proactive about storm water
versus reactive. Um, so, uh, that would mean a safer burrow and a future ready community because, um, I don't know what if you guys all remember, but on July 14th of this year, um, South Planefield
experienced a 6.5 inches of rain in just over two hours. Um, which is torrential and these images are frightening and this was not fun to to search for. Um, but we got extremely
lucky with this. South Planefield is 11 miles away. This could have easily been Somerville. Um, so the question we really wanted to kind of leave you all with is, you know, do we want to spend some time and some money now to protect
our future or do we want to pay for the next emergency that hits Somerville? Um, so definitely a little bit of a downer to end the meeting on, but uh, and I know we went over our time, but um, so thank you so much for this opportunity
to to present to you guys. We we really wanted to to explain uh, explain where we were coming from. >> Thank you. And don't worry about the time. >> Okay. >> Um, so I do want to open it before you sit. I would like to open it up to the planning board for questions if they if any of you have any questions,
clarifications for the environmental commission on anything that they presented. >> Uh ju just a comment. Um thank you. I think it was a very uh uh concise, direct, informative presentation. I don't agree with everything in it, but
that's okay. That that's part of this process. Um, you know, I I think the the goal here tonight is to gather information so that the board has the ability to understand what we can do which will benefit all of
Somerville. So, you know, it's it's it's difficult because we're we're not a planned community. Um, we we don't have a homeowners association. We're a builtout community of individual parcels as I agree smaller parcels of individual
private property. And our job uh both at the planning board and and at the council level is to balance that to balance all of these recommendations. And our goal here is to understand what we have in terms of our ordinances,
what's required under under the new state statutes, and then what the recommendations are coming to us. And then our job both here and at the council is to balance that. And and I wrote down a few things. You you brought them up. You brought a lot of
them up. and and what we have to balance are people, process, planning, protection, private property, and the pocketbook. So, so those are the things that we take
into account. Um, and and I think you brought up some very cogent points which some of which I agree with. Um, you know, I like the the talk of of, you know, how do we separate and make it less stringent for the homeowner and more stringent for the developer. Um,
those are interesting concepts and I think that's what we have to balance as a board in order to make a final recommendation. Um, and so, you know, I do appreciate what you bring to the table. Um it may not have sounded like
that uh in a previous meeting, but I do appreciate that. Um and I think the board does as well. So, you know, it's it's none of what you brought to the table is taken lightly. Um it's all a
part of making the sausage. Um and and we have to make it right for Somerville. That's what we try to do. Um, we understand I understand exactly what you're talking about, but but we have other pressures and we have other uh
items that we have to look at as well and balance all of that together and make something that works environmentally uh from an emergency services perspective, from an economic perspective and also understanding the
personal property perspective. Those all have to play into it. And that's I think what you'll see. It's not going to happen tonight. Uh but I think that's what you're going to see over the course of the meetings where we begin to dive into this so that we can make a a good solid recommendation to the burough
council that that satisfies a lot of the needs um from all of those constituencies and all of those issues that I talked about. Does that does that make sense? Is that I mean is that a fair commentary? Is that >> Yeah. Yeah. And you don't have to answer that.
>> Um and and but that's our that's what we have to do. >> Should I respond? >> You don't you don't have to. That's >> um I I mean I I do I do think I I think that's all fair. I think it's um a matter of opinion. You know, we've we've provided the the data that our um
suggestions were were based on. And that data is frightening for a lot of people. And here in Somerville in this river valley, we are really on the front lines of flooding. So we feel very strongly that we cannot do just the bare minimum
here. The future that I see if we do the bare minimum for our our children and our children's children is is is pretty bleak and we need to start dealing with
the issue versus reacting to the issue. Um so this is a very preliminary first step in doing that. There's a lot more that comes that is part of storm water management than what we've talked about tonight. Like significantly more. Um but
this is a good first step in being proactive rather than reactive. Um I don't know if you had anything else you wanted to add. >> So so I just you know to kind of talk to both of them and then a couple questions kind of. Um first thank you all. You know it it is appreciated. I learned a
lot. Wish I had some of this in advance to digest. So, I'm gonna go through it all a little more and look into these things and I'll probably send Ryan a bunch of questions to bounce back to you guys. Okay. >> Um, you know, but kind of going to what the mayor was saying, it is very it's difficult sitting here because it's very
one-dimensional. I'm sure if I asked the fire department how they feel about any new building, they'd say everything's steel structure, fire resistant, sprinklered, >> whole nine. So, we can save lives. We we don't want anybody to die. you know, there there's always a balance of what
is and what isn't and so we have to look at all the different aspects. So, it is great to have you come in and give us all these so we can look at them and um go through them. I I will have questions because again, you know, the the thickness of the trees and bringing up water, you know, I do look at and you
know, six and a half inches over two hours, even if we're a forest, it's going to it can't absorb that quick. 6 and a half inches in in two hours, you know, in Somerville, it's just no way. no matter how many trees you put. >> So, you know, I think there's going to be some questions of what
>> kind of scenarios do lead to with, hey, what would what would have changed if we did this and this and this and those are things that, you know, I'll bounce to Ryan or Mike or something. >> Yeah. >> Get back to you. >> Sorry, hitting buttons. Um, but I do appreciate it, but I will have some additional follow-up questions about it.
We we welcome >> a lot a lot of information very quickly because you did keep almost did that that 15 but it was a lot of information very quick. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Do you mind if I make a comment? >> Um uh so I I hear you about the you know a tree not being able to absorb that
much water in two hours. Right. Um but a lot of the storms that we experience and a lot of the extreme storms that we experience um sometimes they don't have much effect because the groundwater is dry. we're dry. We don't have the water
table is not that high. But when we have a lot of rain over a period of time and the rain is is building up and then we get triggered with a lot of a rain, that's when you know we have a big problem. So so trees already there will be able to absorb the water that's been
p that's been raining prior to that that and and I so that's I wanted to point that out is that um a lot of the time it's about it was really wet before and then we get hit. So, um >> yeah, and and that I was actually going to bring up something similar that
collage that um that I had up uh where only one of them was from Hurricane Ida. All the other photos were from um I think it was in 2022 into 2023 there was like six or seven weeks of rain pretty
much every single day. Um so that is a perfect example of this. It wasn't a torrential storm. Um it wasn't a huge impact in Deluge. Uh but we're had we had better storm water management um and green infrastructure and all of these
all of these things more trees um you know it it wouldn't have it wouldn't have flooded for for days on end. >> Any other questions from Go ahead. >> Question the other night. >> Can you turn your microphone on?
>> I think you're doing the opposite. It should be red on your microphone. >> It is. >> I look at this. It seems like it's a better way to look at this trees. >> Yeah. what problem are really trying to solve.
>> Right. Yeah. And I it it's funny you mentioned that because I we actually to our environmental commission email after um after the comments in in September, we had somebody reach out wondering if an incentivization program was an alternate option. Um that is uh not our
purview. We don't have money to give away to uh to people who want to plant trees or whatever um whatever sort of >> I don't have any money. >> Yeah. Um Yeah, education, creative zoning. Uh, Mr. O'Neal actually put a meadow in his
front lawn and uh >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Actually, ed educating the public is a huge pillar of u what we do at the commission. So, uh, we have plenty of material out there and and push it on our social media and stuff. So, there's
only so much, uh, so much that, uh, kind of positive reinforcement like that can do. So, I think coming at the issue from both angles is is probably, uh, probably the best interest of everybody and and the needs of our town. >> And I think that's an important point. I think what what Bill said is true. And
and you know we we have spoken many times about educating the public and we would be remiss if we didn't provide the public from from our table whether it be this board or the burough council with exactly what what say say this doesn't
go through. Say we go to the the minimums and we have that discussion. That's what this board decides. It goes to the council. Uh but moving forward we we present to the public exactly what the benefits would be if they did this. We right now at the council table offer
a uh a sidewalk program where members of the burrow can join in and when we have enough people they get their sidewalk fixed at a lower rate. Trees are expensive. We know that. We talked about this $650. We talk about it with redevelopment. We talk about it with our plans. There's a lot of ways that we can
attack this. I think that would definitely benefit everyone and would come to the exact same conclusion. But I think there still has to be some support, you know, to to make sure that folks understand that this is important. Whether or not it comes to fruition with the exact way that the the committee
would like to see it or or a mixture of the two, I think that our job as as members of of this body and as members of the government is to present the whole facts and make sure that that our you know our constituents understand
that that doing something like this would help them. And and yes, to that point, obviously when it rains and it rains and it rains and it rains, the more trees we have, the more storage there is. That's the whole concept of of you know, storm water storage. Uh the more impervious coverage we have, the
less storage we have. Even we've had we've had people come in here and present that they'll there's more storm water storage when they put up a large development. It goes around, but there's there's issues that we have to deal with. And I think having these discussions is
important. And I think that again, it's the education piece. Regardless of how this shakes out at this body, we have to, you know, work with the committee, to the commission to present this information to the public and make sure they understand that there's ways we can
make this work. And if the incentivizing as as was said before is creating a program where we have the same thing like the sidewalks because we do tell people what to do with their sidewalks. It's a common space, but trees are also, as was discussed today, a common use. So if we
can come up with some kind of incentivizing process like that then maybe that helps everybody. >> I like it. >> Any other questions for the commission? >> Just just a comment. I want to say thank you
to the environmental commission because this is the hard work that they do. They they do this all the time. So, I appreciate that you come in and present. The town appreciates it. I know I do.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, Larry. >> So, I'm going to reiterate. Yes. And thank you. We do appreciate it. We do value your input, which is why we wanted to wait for the right time when we finally had everything in front of us for us for you to present. It makes more sense to us now than you just presenting
and then us getting documents afterwards. We really wanted to have good context for that. This discussion is going to be ongoing. Um, and it's not going to be an overnight, which we don't want because we really want to have that discussion, open discussion, and really
look at that balance, right? And and the mayor said it and and it is a balance, right? What what is appropriate, you know, just because we were focused on what the new requirements are versus recommendations doesn't mean that's where we're sitting. We really just needed to understand what that baseline requirement was. And for a lot of us,
it's been very confusing, right? Some of us have, like in my everyday job, I deal with this every day, right? We deal with mitigation. We have to figure out green infrastructure. We have to figure out that stuff. So, I'm very well aware of the flooding problems Somerset County has because I have to deal with it in Somerset County every single day. Um,
but I also, you know, do want to also, you know, warn that we want to be careful about flash flooding versus flooding because flash flooding, I don't care what the condition is. If you do it in the middle of a forest and it's on top of a hill, all that water is going down to North Planefield, South Planefield, and Greenbrook, unfortunately. So, I also want to be
careful on what we're looking at and on those facts on how that implicates municipalities because Somerville is one of those municipalities that floods and we are very well aware of it in, you know, whether it's our hazard mitigation plan trying to address that and now through storm, you know, maybe more
in-depth storm water management as well as the trees. Um, but I did also before just for my own clarification, I did have a couple questions on some things that you stated in there and it's I am not questioning you saying you're wrong. I just want to understand. Right. Okay.
So, one of the first things you had talked about under the stormwater um uh management was that you said it doesn't address redevelopment and it addresses major development but not redevelopment. Redevelopment eventually when it comes before us is a major development. So I
just wanted to kind of understand why you feel it doesn't address redevelopment specifically. So like we were talk like the um the the enhancement so such that um when when a redeveloper comes to to you to you know develop on a property right they're
starting with a certain um impervious coverage or a certain property right and so um redevelopers are required to follow whatever regulations the town has in place and um though that property is a certain size and what we're
considering ing is that that redevelopment be assumed as a entire imper impervious coverage be basically a floor to start with and I think I don't know Chris can I don't know if you can jump in a little bit more on this um with the exact specific more specifics
on it but um that is one of the enhancements that we were recommending is that it start there and then go forward. Did you have anything that you any points you wanted to make on that specific part? Yeah. So, um when the inland flood protection rule was passed in 2023, uh 2024 was the deadline to
adopt the ordinance. Um it kind of opened this loophole where it required green infrastructure practices and best management practices for uh new developments in the state. We're a very built out state. There's not a whole lot of new developments. So, um, what the
ordinance does and what the anticipated NJPAC real rules do is it closes that redevelopment loophole where it now requires uh best management practices for storm water for all redevelopment projects if if that makes sense. >> So, I guess my question then would be to
our planner. So, how is that different than how we approach it currently? Well, currently the rules state that let's say you have I'll give you an example. The foundry the board just heard this 50 James it had more imperous coverage on the
existing condition than they did what they were proposing. So they were actually reducing the impervious coverage and the storm water rules allow that if you can demonstrate hydraulically that your runoff is match or less that you don't have to do any storm water management because you're
reducing the impervious coverage. If I'm understanding this right that is is viewed as a loophole. So they're suggesting that it doesn't matter if the whole site's paved. If you're redeveloping that site, you have to
treat it as pvious coverage. You can't say it's been paid for 50 years and we're doing less runoff from it than what existing today. Is that cor? >> Yes. And that's 50 years. That's an important point because before 2004, the
stormwater management rules didn't really have much teeth. So any development that was produced prior to 2004 um really didn't have a lot of uh stormwater management uh controls. So that redevelopment loophole is kind of where that kicks in is now you would
have to introduce storm water management uh BMPs. >> Okay. Thank you. That clarifies. I just wanted to as we're all going to be trying to digest this. For me that would have been sticking in my head going what did they mean by that? So I appreciate that. Um for um the
street trees uh oh no minor development you said for a minor development 400 square f feet 200 gallons two it's not 200 two gallons would have to be retained on site can you give some examples of where that would be applicable so what you're thinking as
you know it's hard a lot of us are visual you know I get 5 to 400 square feet but even the public who are watching this or listening to But some of the board members might Can you give us some examples of what that would what where you foresee that that would have to take place? >> Yeah, that that that's that's basically
a small patio that consider that you know small patio addition to your driveway. That's kind of what we would we would envision that to type. >> So I guess I guess my question to piggyback on that then let's say I'm putting in a 400 sorry a 400 square foot patio. So
on that patio I need to do greenery be or or just >> so if if the rest of my yard is grass >> what am I doing when I put that patio in
to to get an extra um what whatever the number was >> two gallons a square >> two two yeah two gallons how do I do that if the rest of my yard is grass and I'm putting a 400 foot patio in >> right so now what you've done is um when
you put that patio and let's say it's completely impervious and it's you know it's grouded it's like just complete rock right um now that area cannot absorb water so now you have a higher rate and larger volume of water in the surrounding area and so
you need more um storage capacity around it to treat that area >> I understand that so >> I think asking how do you foresee that being >> how do you foresee that am I planting trees to do that >> so And so it would it you know it it we we've and we've talked to the watershed
institute about this and Chris you can jump in as well. We they've they've been willing to give us um examples that we can share with you about how exactly that would happen. But what they have told us is it amounts to every people that normally put up patios, they normally put in a little
bit of like, you know, landscaping around it, >> right? And that's basically what we're talking about. >> I guess that's my question is do shrubs will that do it? I mean, >> there's a certain amount that we can >> 4 inch tree that's doing >> No. No. Right. It's these shrubs can handle it and we we have we can we can
jump back and I don't know you can jump in right now if you want to. Um uh we can but we can circle back with the the watershed institute and get exactly what that would be but yes essentially it's going to be a few shrubs. Did you want to >> Yeah. Yeah. Um on page 31 there's a table with a list of potential green
infrastructure solutions. That's not the that doesn't fully encompass the options available. um like uh we suggested, you know, a a patio can be designed in a permeable way, right? You can design it where there's, you know, spaces between the bricks and, you know, so it doesn't
necessarily apply to anything that you put in your backyard, but also a vegetative filter strip. That's a fancy way of saying, you know, you have a line of shrubs or even just smaller like native plants that absorb rain water. Like we kind of mentioned, uh 40 gallons
of water a day for a, you know, 4 inch, not super mature tree, a vegetative filter strip with just native plants can probably satisfy um whatever the the storm water reduction requirement is. And then you know there's a whole list of other things
that you can do. It's not you know super um uh uh you know strict on what the the landscapers or the property owner can do. It's it's a pretty simple solution. It's for minor development like that. Yeah, Jason, if you look on page three
of the summary, the summary, >> uh, my summary, it talks the two, >> you look at, no, the summary, the, uh, summary table, right, the cheat sheet. >> Okay. You have a, uh, four-page cheat sheet that talks
about the model and the proposed. Yeah, >> if you look on page three, it says uh through grass whales, green roof, pvious paving, small scale bio retention basin, small scale infiltration basins, small scale sand filter, vegetation filter
strip, sistn or dry well. That's right out of the proposed. It just gives you a summary. I'm telling you that most of these questions I I I hope I caught it on the the summary table to address. I said a lot lot of a lot of information very quickly. So
>> yeah, that's I'll probably shoot questions over. >> No, and that's those are like why I said I just kind of wanted some clarification as we go back because we're now going to have to be tasked with all digesting all of this >> and then coming back for you know and constantly having these discussions. So I I do appreciate that and again I
wasn't questioning anything. I just really wanted some clarification on that thought process and what you meant by it so that at least as I'm digesting and looking at different options I have an un true understanding of what your intent was by those. of of of course we're we're happy to have discuss we're we're glad to have this discussion with you. Of course.
Yeah. >> Yeah. I I would second that. We are we are very happy to to be here and have have presented this all to you guys. Um we welcome any more questions and um if there are if you need us to come back for another presentation, we can probably be a little bit more concise
now that we got uh the basics and and maybe a little bit more than just the basics down. >> Thank you. Um any other questions from the board? All right, I am going to open this up to the public for any public that would like to come up, have questions or comments.
When you come up, please state your name and address for the record. >> David D'vorne, 71 Davenport Street. Uh, this is my first planning board meeting, and I'm surprised how these meetings delve into deep details. I don't know if that's the way it's supposed to be.
However, what I don't hear are goals, uh, whether they're already established or whether they're needed. So, um, for example, I've never heard once in this meeting, how does this X, whether it's a requirement or or a question, how does
it align with the goal that we're trying to achieve? Given this, uh, I believe that the board may be focusing on the trees rather than the forest, and that's no pun intended. Um, uh framing Somerville's storm water and
tree policies primarily around checking off requirements I think is shortsighted and I understand that you need to understand requirements. I understand that. Uh instead I'm strongly suggesting you begin by asking what goals should
the town establish for managing storm water and dealing with trees in a way that reflects our values, vulnerabilities, and long-term resilience. Once the goals are clear, the state's detailed language becomes a
toolkit, not something that you check off for crafting the right steps that are needed to achieve those goals. Lastly, it seems to me what's been presented are ways to mitigate mitigate significant increases in property taxes that would
need to go up in order to pay for the equipment and services needed to deal with the floods that we experience. Um, oh, and Mr. Gallagher, I applaud the need for balance. However, I wish you had the same attitude when you went through your prepared rant at a recent
town council meeting. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments. >> Anyone else? >> Hi, I'm Richard Bowski. I live at 91 Brookside Avenue. Um, I think this is also maybe my first
planning meeting, fellow physics major. So I'm happy to. So I guess have a couple questions. It's very interesting. Um, one is obviously when you have like a a event like the planefield flood,
if we did the most aggressive perfect, you know, tree canopy, you know, um, study here or not study, but if we implemented that um, like a utopian thing, would that what would
that really prevent like or would we still have floods that overwhelm the system because if if it doesn't then what's really the point? My other thing is um I'm not too thrilled about having I guess police measure the trees in in a
in a person's yard and and it sounds like there's going to be like a you know a fee fine or whatever. Not really thrilled about that especially given the burdens that people have with housing and our our housing crisis that we have right now. seems like that would
not be incentivized people to create more housing. Um, and with that, I think the previous gentleman alluded to that, it seems like having like a property tax incentive rather than a fee. If this is
really, you know, saving our infrastructure, like if you plant 10 trees, why not get a property tax rebate? seems like a easy way to get a ton more trees rather than having a policing system for not planting enough trees.
>> Seems like a way better, much faster way of of getting to your goal, which I totally agree with. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Anyone else? >> Okay, I'm going to close public for just this.
Okay. So, our uh task on the planning board for members, digest everything, take some time, review, come back with questions. This again is going to be an ongoing um discussion. We're not going to rush this because there is so many
are so many uh aspects of this that we need to really look at and really decide on how and uh to proceed and what is the best way for Somerville as a whole. Um and we don't take it lightly and we don't want anyone on this board to take it lightly. So uh take your time. We
will continue at each meeting to have some discussion. Um and we will keep the public informed through our uh agenda so that you know when we will be discussing it. Um and because we we want moving forward this is what we want. We want that discussion. We want those comments
all public and environmental commission. We want the feedback and the comments back from the residents. Um because you're environmental but you're also resident. So, we want all that. Um, and that was what we would uh be doing moving forward. All right. So, thank you again for everybody who did come to present. All right. Next is we still
just have I'm just going to comment on open business. This isn't something for discussion. We do are in the process of our master plan update and review. November 1st is that update is that I'm sorry deadline for all of the committees that are and all those portions of the
master plan. And sir to your comment the master plan is our goal and that is what we are looking at. So we do have a goal and a document that we have to abide by. So thank you for that. Um with that November 1st I think we've gotten quite a few back. Um, but I know I'm going to
I well, he doesn't know it, but I'm going to be tasking Ryan to sending out a reminder to everybody just so that we can ensure that everyone does have um that that we're staying on track because we this anything beyond November 1st that we received does delay our timeline of trying to get this master plan
re-exam re because now it has to come back to us and then same thing that we're doing with the tree ordinance, storm water, we have to reevaluate it, look at all the comments from everybody and decide, you know, what our vision moving forward for the next 20 30 years looks like. So, >> and while we have the environmental
commission here, the comments for the master plan, that's not the ordinance recommendations, right? Or am I still waiting on comments for the master? >> You're waiting on comments. >> I'm just making sure that I'm not these are just ordinances, right?
>> So, you're still on my hit list is what I'm saying. Yes, you're on my hit list because you you owe me information, right? We will get back to you. >> We got diverted. >> You're good. >> November 1st. >> By November 1st. That's all we asked. >> That's why the reminder is going to go out because it is creeping up on us.
This the end of the year always seems to fly by for all of us. Um and you know, we try to be cognizant. We only have three planning board meetings left. So that's why we're trying to stick to a pretty strict guideline because we don't want to carry so much over as as much as we don't have to carry into the new year, we don't want to carry into the
new year. Um, beyond that, architectural review board, we have nothing that we had to that came before us. So, there's nothing to review. I absolutely do not have any other comments for the record here. Um, so I am actually going to open up the meeting. This is for all members of the public that wish to address the
board on any matter that was not listed on our agenda tonight. Uh, you may. So, at this time, all parties addressed interested in addressing the board, please approach the microphone, state your full name and address for the record, and provide your comments and questions. All comments and questions are limited to five minutes. Any member
of public that would like to come forward. >> Hello all. I'm Britney Burton. I own Revive Consignment on 30 South Dowy A. Uh 10 years this November. Um correct me if I'm wrong. We were 10 minutes late. Did we miss discussion on
the redevelopment of 30 South Dowy and New Street and the West End? >> It was done before that. Yes. But if you have a question, please feel free to ask that. >> Okay. I guess the major question is how would that affect uh our business or businesses in that area?
>> It's not going to. It's just establishing the area should the council adopt it. The planning board's recommendation is make the area an area in need of redevelopment, which means there'll be forthcoming redevelopment standards and most likely those standards will not be for uh your lot
and block your your facility, your location. >> Okay. More so if there are, you'll have an opportunity this >> there's nothing being proposed. There's no standards. This is just classifying the area. >> Okay, that answered my question. Yes, it should have no immediate impact or or
even, you know, in the near future type impact that would not impact your business. No. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> You're welcome. >> Any other comments? >> I can ask questions. Yeah. >> Um
I'm not as familiar with the previous agenda items. Was it an AI data center or education center? >> An education. It basically teaches people how to use AI to better themselves >> or their business or >> Okay. >> It's it's just like QOD but in the AI
world. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I don't know what that is but okay. >> Yeah. Um >> most of us don't which is why we're looking at our be our zoning. >> So this isn't really a matter of like precedent and whether or not like we can determine if it's legal. It's you guys making the decision of whether or not it's a designated use.
>> So >> is that the discussion? >> So yeah. So we have each of the if you look on we have a zoning map that you can get online and each area has a designated zone. This area of B5 which is right along the 22 corridor um very specific uses obviously residential is
not allowed in a B5 zone. Um, so what we're doing is looking at that that stretch of that zone B5 and saying, do we feel that this is an acceptable use to be added into that zone? As well as
and anytime we open up the re looking at an a zone, designate a zone in our uh borrow, is there anything that we want to now also exclude or also include. So we never just try to look at one. We try to say, hey, this is an opportunity for us to look at the whole designation. Um
but it is just that zone. Uh it would not affect any other zone within Somerville. It is just that 22 stretch corridor >> 206 >> N206. Sorry, they are B5. >> Awesome. >> Um since there's not really a precedent of whether or not an AI education center
is, you know, it's not a a black and white thing of whether or not it's acceptable. Um, I I feel compelled to just, you know, say I I don't think that an AI education center is probably the best use of the space that we have in in
our bureau. Um, I mean, I don't really know what exactly would go on there, but in terms of using a AI, in terms of determining what's AI and what's not AI, even like this year where we're seeing videos and photos
that are indistinguishable from reality. um using chat GBT for students, high school students, college students, it contributes to a cognitive offloading where you're, you know, deferring to a machine uh to use all of your mental
faculties for simple tasks. Um I don't know if if there's discretion on this council of whether or not it's an acceptable use, um I I feel like it's in the public interest for it to not be and to not have that in our in our bureau. I
don't know what the the legal uh uh boundaries are of of that type of situation, but just my thoughts as a resident. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else from the public? >> Okay. Anyone else? All right. I'm going to close public session.
All right. I need a motion to adjurnn. Just one quick update for the board. At Monday night's council meeting, um the uh council updated the approval I'm sorry, thank you. The they updated the approval process for um uh outdoor
dining. >> So, typically it was approved by the ARB and it was done. Um it's it's going back to what it used to be, which is the ARB will approve and make the recommendation. and the planning board will have the uh the final approval on
the uh the outdoor dining. >> So just just an FYI. So we'll start to see those in March. >> So on future applications, development applications, we the board can chime in on the outdoor dining component on that. >> Yeah. So it's going to go back to remember it would be the ARB would make the recommendation, but that re it was
only a recommendation that would come to us and then we made the final. >> Yep. >> All right. >> Any motion? Motion to >> second. All in favor?